Re: PCB version control

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: PCB version control
De : blockedofcourse (at) *nospam* foo.invalid (Don Y)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 26. Mar 2025, 07:28:01
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vs06po$14pc8$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2
On 3/25/2025 3:53 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 3/25/2025 3:44 AM, Don Y wrote:
   "No.  I can replace a single page if necessary.  So, each EPROM
   /in the set/ can be at a different revision level.  It's up to
   Engineering to manage this (configuration management) so only
   valid "combinations" of those devices are incorporated into a
   released product."
 This last is important.  If you want to force a production change,
you have to change a part number, not a revision level.
 E.g., I can revise an algorithm in a particular piece of code.
Any revision will perform identically (if performance is
defined by getting the correct "result"/return value).  A new
revision may change some other aspect -- a faster algorithm,
smaller, better documented, etc. -- but is same fit/form/function
as the earlier revision.
 If I *need* the product to use a newer version of that algorithm,
then I have to give the function a new part number and update the
BoM (makefile) to reflect that new part number.
To drive this home:
<https://www.product-lifecycle-management.com/plm-best-practice-revision.htm>
<https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/2568500/Content%20Offer%20PDFs/MCL_Revision_vs_New_Part_Number_Infographic.pdf>
<https://plmadvisors.com/plm-and-configuration-management-best-practices-part-numbers/>
Assuming you have assigned part numbers to each software module/file,
consider how you currently think of "version control".  Is a rev B
version of that file INTERCHANGEABLE with a rev A version (see above
criteria)?  Likely the new file would have an augmented set of
test cases to reflect the fact that it is now tested against the
condition(s) that the earlier version was found to be defective!
[So, *two* documents need to change before this is propagated]
Chances are, it is not!  Rev B likely came about to FIX something
that was broken in rev A.  So, using rev B in place of rev A would
lead to a different product (one that is more correct than the
predecessor).
As such, the part number for that file should change to reflect this
incompatibility.  This change would then propagate upward through the
assemblies to eventually reflect the fact that the finished product
with the "revised file" is, in fact, a different and not interchangeable
product with those that were built on the unrevised file.
You surely wouldn't build a copy of last year's code base and try to
pawn it off as identical with the most recent codebase!

Date Sujet#  Auteur
24 Mar 25 * PCB version control34bitrex
24 Mar 25 +* Re: PCB version control4john larkin
24 Mar 25 i`* Re: PCB version control3bitrex
24 Mar 25 i `* Re: PCB version control2john larkin
24 Mar 25 i  `- Re: PCB version control1john larkin
24 Mar 25 `* Re: PCB version control29Don Y
24 Mar 25  `* Re: PCB version control28john larkin
24 Mar 25   `* Re: PCB version control27Phil Hobbs
24 Mar 25    `* Re: PCB version control26Joe Gwinn
24 Mar 25     `* Re: PCB version control25Don Y
25 Mar 25      +- Re: PCB version control1john larkin
25 Mar 25      `* Re: PCB version control23Don Y
25 Mar 25       `* Re: PCB version control22Don Y
25 Mar 25        +* Re: PCB version control13Don Y
25 Mar 25        i+* Re: PCB version control2bitrex
25 Mar 25        ii`- Re: PCB version control1Don Y
26 Mar 25        i`* Re: PCB version control10Don Y
26 Mar 25        i `* Re: PCB version control9john larkin
26 Mar 25        i  `* Re: PCB version control8Joe Gwinn
26 Mar 25        i   `* Re: PCB version control7Don Y
27 Mar 25        i    `* Re: PCB version control6Ian
27 Mar 25        i     `* Re: PCB version control5Don Y
29 Mar 25        i      `* Re: PCB version control4Ian
29 Mar 25        i       `* Re: PCB version control3Don Y
29 Mar 25        i        `* Re: PCB version control2Ian
29 Mar 25        i         `- Re: PCB version control1Don Y
25 Mar 25        `* Re: PCB version control8john larkin
25 Mar 25         `* Re: PCB version control7bitrex
25 Mar 25          +* Re: PCB version control3Don Y
25 Mar 25          i+- Re: PCB version control1john larkin
25 Mar 25          i`- Re: PCB version control1Don Y
25 Mar 25          `* Re: PCB version control3john larkin
25 Mar 25           `* Re: PCB version control2bitrex
25 Mar 25            `- Re: PCB version control1john larkin

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal